Sanction of the Victim

[Alfonso Jones]

I think that Rand's concept of "The Sanction of the Victim" is one of her most penetrating and powerful concepts.

Can anyone suggest any other authors/thinkers who prefigured this concept in their writing?

Bill P

[Guyau]

Hi Bill,

Chris Sciabarra tackles that question in Ayn Rand –The Russian Radical. He writes: “Though Rand developed her notion of the ‘sanction of the victim’ and of the reciprocity between master and slave in her own unique style, these concepts were not entirely new to intellectual history.” He mentions Étienne de la Boetie’s A Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1577). “In the history of philosophy, however, it was Hegel who dealt most explicitly with the codependency of master and slave. . . .”

See pages 301–4 of Chris’ book. He notes that Rand was putting the concept to work also in The Fountainhead, though the concept is not named there. On Rand’s conceptions of power relations in this novel, and comparison with Nietzsche’s conceptions, see the study by Lester Hunt here.

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the Hunt link, Stephen. I'll finish reading it later today. Here's a question for one and all: Did Rand's heroic characters project "a noble soul"? If so, was it more pronounced in The Fountainhead than Atlas Shrugged? And--I've probably got the proper order mixed up--just what does "reverence for itself" mean? This idea seems quite different from mere self-esteem. Self worship?

--Brant

[Xray]

Thanks for the Hunt link, Stephen. I'll finish reading it later today. Here's a question for one and all: Did Rand's heroic characters project "a noble soul"? If so, was it more pronounced in The Fountainhead than Atlas Shrugged? And--I've probably got the proper order mixed up--just what does "reverence for itself" mean? This idea seems quite different from mere self-esteem. Self worship?

--Brant

I think reverence for itself does mean self-adulation. The logical consequence of the Nietzschean "superman" who placed himself far above "ordinary people".

As for the "noble soul" of Rand's characters - 'noble' used connotatively is always a subjectve value attribution.

Rand's heroes very often show lack of empathy: Roark even commits rape.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Xray

[Guyau]

Brant,

The title of Part 9 of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil (1886) is “What Is Noble?” There in §287, he writes “What is noble? . . . . It is not works, it is faith that is decisive here, faith that establishes rank order (this old, religious formula now acquires a new and deeper meaning): some fundamental certainty that a noble soul has about itself, something that cannot be looked for, cannot be found, and perhaps cannot be lost either. —The noble soul has reverence for itself.—”

Readers of Rand probably know that that is the excerpt that Rand had thought would have been right in spirit as an epigraph for The Fountainhead. (So far as I recall, she did not use any nobility metaphors in Fountainhead.) She did not venture the epigraph, in part because she understood, correctly, that its tethers to Nietzsche’s fuller meaning of 287 and his conception of a noble soul would distract from the conception of a right soul she was casting in her protagonist.

What Rand was bringing to the American audience in this novel was not simply praise for individualism and self-reliance. Those were long-time virtues with Americans. What she was bringing that was new was praise for an egoism, an express selfishness, wedded to individualism. Naturally, her ideological opponents tried to characterize her egoism as that of Nietzsche (who was at that time in enormous disrepute because the Nazis had explicitly appropriated elements from him and had idolized him). That characterization was and is just so much laziness or smear and not a serious reading of either philosopher.

Also in Part 9, in §265, Nietzsche writes: “At the risk of annoying innocent ears I will propose this: egoism belongs to the essence of the noble soul. I mean that firm belief that other beings will, by nature, have to be subordinate to a being ‘like us’ and will have to sacrifice themselves. The noble soul accepts this fact of its egoism without any question-mark, . . . but rather as something that may well be grounded in the primordial law of things.” (These translations are by Judith Norman [Cambridge 2002].) In The Fountainhead Rand gives her protagonist these lines in his climactic courtroom speech: “The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence” (739).

I have for a long time called Nietzsche’s form of egoism “noble egoism.” His affection for the caste-concept of nobility which he used for spinning psychological type-castings of human beings, stretching from Human, All Too Human (1878) to Genealogy of Morals (1887), goes back to boys’ school and to his subsequent training as a classicist. Kant, too, had known of all that reliance on notions of nobility and honor among classical ethicists such as Cicero. He did not select those elements to bring forward as central concepts for his ethics, for he enthusiastically embraced the emerging liberal social order, whereas Nietzsche despised it. (For a note on nobility-concepts in Rand (1957) and Nietzsche, and for comparison of their ethical conceptions more generally, see a, I, II, III.)

Robert Mayhew, I would mention, has some good study of connections between Rand and Nietzsche in Rand’s original composition of Anthem, in his “Anthem: ’38 to ’46” in Essays on Ayn Rand’s Anthem (2005 37–42).

We have drifted off Bill’s topic.

[Selene]

Thanks for the Hunt link, Stephen. I'll finish reading it later today. Here's a question for one and all: Did Rand's heroic characters project "a noble soul"? If so, was it more pronounced in The Fountainhead than Atlas Shrugged? And--I've probably got the proper order mixed up--just what does "reverence for itself" mean? This idea seems quite different from mere self-esteem. Self worship?

--Brant

I think reverence for itself does mean self-adulation. The logical consequence of the Nietzschean "superman" who placed himself far above "ordinary people".

As for the "noble soul" of Rand's characters - 'noble' used connotatively is always a subjectve value attribution.

Rand's heroes very often show lack of empathy: Roark even commits rape.

Mrs. Xray:

empathy

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the Hunt link, Stephen. I'll finish reading it later today. Here's a question for one and all: Did Rand's heroic characters project "a noble soul"? If so, was it more pronounced in The Fountainhead than Atlas Shrugged? And--I've probably got the proper order mixed up--just what does "reverence for itself" mean? This idea seems quite different from mere self-esteem. Self worship?

--Brant

I think reverence for itself does mean self-adulation. The logical consequence of the Nietzschean "superman" who placed himself far above "ordinary people".

As for the "noble soul" of Rand's characters - 'noble' used connotatively is always a subjectve value attribution.

Rand's heroes very often show lack of empathy: Roark even commits rape.

How could Roark commit rape when all Dominique had to do was say "stop"? As I recall the scene she didn't say a word. Neither did he. And the events leading up to this were all obvious to both and the readers--that there was going to be sex by implicit invitation and in a way they both wanted. The unreality of this came out of the unreality of her character. In real life such a person would have serious psychological problems and this kind of sex might drive her really wacko. Roark's character had its own problems but if he was a rapist "The Fountainhead" would have been titled "The Rapist" instead. I am, though, at a loss to understand Roark's nobility and will now read what Stephen wrote.

--Brant

edit: Having read Stephen's post I have to say I like the distinction between "right" and "noble" soul and that Roark was actually of the former. I think that a noble soul is going to be a lot more social than the typical Randian hero might be.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Alfonso Jones]

Hi Bill,

Chris Sciabarra tackles that question in Ayn Rand –The Russian Radical. He writes: “Though Rand developed her notion of the ‘sanction of the victim’ and of the reciprocity between master and slave in her own unique style, these concepts were not entirely new to intellectual history.” He mentions Étienne de la Boetie’s A Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1577). “In the history of philosophy, however, it was Hegel who dealt most explicitly with the codependency of master and slave. . . .”

See pages 301–4 of Chris’ book. He notes that Rand was putting the concept to work also in The Fountainhead, though the concept is not named there. On Rand’s conceptions of power relations in this novel, and comparison with Nietzsche’s conceptions, see the study by Lester Hunt here.

Thanks for your helpful post, Stephen.

I'll have to read up in The Russial Radical, pages 301-304. I agree the concept is clearly present in The Fountainhead - - - but without the careful explanation. In The Fountainhead, it's just there.

Thanks,

BIll P

[Selene]

I think that Rand's concept of "The Sanction of the Victim" is one of her most penetrating and powerful concepts.

Can anyone suggest any other authors/thinkers who prefigured this concept in their writing?

Bill P

Bill:

I am not as well versed in literature as many in this forum. However, I have not run across one. It was one of the instant attractions and bonds for me. The Landmark/Earhart sensitivity training folks would say "I got it."

By the way, the Conservative took the governorship of Virginia convincingly. A major slap in the face to O'biwan here in NJ as the Fat Man beat the bald high tax corrupt Wall Street Bald guy.

Adam

[Xray]

Mrs. Xray:

empathy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empathy

Edited November 4, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

How could Roark commit rape when all Dominique had to do was say "stop"?

As I recall the scene she didn't say a word. Neither did he.

If her fighting back did not stop him, I don't think saying "stop" would have.

For she did fight back, and while Rand, later asked whether it was rape, said "If it was rape then it was by engraved invitation", the scene itself, taken alone, does to offer enough clues that it was consensual.

This was neither some prearranged sexual domination encounter, nor could Roark have known before how Dominique would react.

For example, she could have called the police and have him arrested. But the scene was of course a creation of Rand's mind. It was all in her head.

Subjective as in dependent on mind. Imo Rand time and again made the mistake of believing that her subjective preferences were objective values and virtues. This explains her thinking of Roark "as man should be".

And the events leading up to this were all obvious to both and the readers--that there was going to be sex by implicit invitation and in a way they both wanted. The unreality of this came out of the unreality of her character.

The unreality of the characters has been noted by many.

Now while a novel needn't have realistic characters, Rand certainly did not think of herself as a writer of unrealistic stories. She did attibute realism to her charactes,

On another thread DF mentioned that Rand used to point to herself and to the Brandens, claiming that people she wrote about did exist in reality, implying that her philosophy was realistic and that she was herself a good example of it.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7789&st=40 (# 54)

So she did attibute realism to her charactes, and here's the rub.

In real life such a person would have serious psychological problems and this kind of sex might drive her really wacko.

Jmo too.

Roark's character had its own problems but if he was a rapist "The Fountainhead" would have been titled "The Rapist" instead.

I doubt it. Roark committed another act of violence by dynamiting the Cortland building, but this would not have caused Rand to call TF "The Destroyer".

Rand let her heroes get away with a lot.

Suppose Lillian Rearden had felt entitled to 'retaliate the Roarkian way' against her husband (who too had 'breached a contract' by adultery), by e. g. destroying Dagny's apartment? How would Objectivists have judged her?

edit: Having read Stephen's post I have to say I like the distinction between "right" and "noble" soul and that Roark was actually of the former. I think that a noble soul is going to be a lot more social than the typical Randian hero might be.

The general problem with "morally right" is that different ideologies all claim 'rightness' for the moral values propagated by them.

Was Roark "right" in blowing up the building? Again, it is always 'right' by which created standard? Does breach of contract give peple the right to commit such acts? If yes, then Lillian would have had the same right, wouldn't she?

I think that a noble soul is going to be a lot more social than the typical Randian hero might be

The association I have with 'noble soul' goes in the same direction.

But what can make discussion in ethics problematic:

While 3 x 3 = 9 is the same in China as everywhere else, when you ask people what they think "a noble soul" is, you will get different answers from different individuals, often tinged by the culture they have absorbed.

Of the fiction I have read, certain characters stand out in my memory of which I would say they have "noble souls".

But imo Ayn Rand would have strongly disapproved of calling these persons noble at all since all three were socially oriented and often went out of their way to help others. Imo Rand would have despised them as so-called "altruists":

Dr. Rieux in Camus The Plague

Dorothea Brooke in G. Eliot's Middlemarch

Marija in L. Tolstoj's War and Peace.

Maybe also Alyosha in the F. Dostoyewski's The Broters Brothers Karamasov.

Isabel Archer in H. James's Portrait of a Lady is quite a noble soul too.

Compared to these, the Randian hero Roark comes across as having severe emotional deficits.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I think that Rand's concept of "The Sanction of the Victim" is one of her most penetrating and powerful concepts.

Can anyone suggest any other authors/thinkers who prefigured this concept in their writing?

Bill P

Imo Rand's obsession with "sanctioning of the victim" has its roots in her traumatic years in Russia, where so much had been denied her by "them" who regarded her as an "unwelcome" member of society.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I think that Rand's concept of "The Sanction of the Victim" is one of her most penetrating and powerful concepts.

Can anyone suggest any other authors/thinkers who prefigured this concept in their writing?

Bill P

Imo Rand's obsession with "sanctioning of the victim" has its roots in her traumatic years in Russia, where so much had been denied her by "them" who regarded her as an "unwelcome" member of society.

Ms. Xray:

"The general problem with "morally right" is that different ideologies all claim 'rightness' for the moral values propagated by them."

What is your personal definitions of "morally right"? In other words, what is morally right to Ms. Xray?

"...'sanctioning of the victim'..." as you misstate the phrase is vastly different than what Ayn stated as the "sanction of the victim". You may correct or justify your misstatement now.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

I tried to reply to the following, but a glitch in this site caused me to lose what I had written. I may try again later. What happens is if I use the Google spell check and then use the back space key in editing out the misspelling everything is lost. This has happened quite a few times to me in the last year or so and I'm trying to stop doing it.

--Brant

How could Roark commit rape when all Dominique had to do was say "stop"?

As I recall the scene she didn't say a word. Neither did he.

If her fighting back did not stop him, I don't think saying "stop" would have.

For she did fight back, and while Rand, later asked whether it was rape, said "If it was rape then it was by engraved invitation", the scene itself, taken alone, does to offer enough clues that it was consensual.

This was neither some prearranged sexual domination encounter, nor could Roark have known before how Dominique would react.

For example, she could have called the police and have him arrested. But the scene was of course a creation of Rand's mind. It was all in her head.

Subjective as in dependent on mind. Imo Rand time and again made the mistake of believing that her subjective preferences were objective values and virtues. This explains her thinking of Roark "as man should be".

And the events leading up to this were all obvious to both and the readers--that there was going to be sex by implicit invitation and in a way they both wanted. The unreality of this came out of the unreality of her character.

The unreality of the characters has been noted by many.

Now while a novel needn't have realistic characters, Rand certainly did not think of herself as a writer of unrealistic stories. She did attibute realism to her charactes,

On another thread DF mentioned that Rand used to point to herself and to the Brandens, claiming that people she wrote about did exist in reality, implying that her philosophy was realistic and that she was herself a good example of it.

http://www.objectivi...opic=7789&st=40 (# 54)

So she did attibute realism to her charactes, and here's the rub.

In real life such a person would have serious psychological problems and this kind of sex might drive her really wacko.

Jmo too.

Roark's character had its own problems but if he was a rapist "The Fountainhead" would have been titled "The Rapist" instead.

I doubt it. Roark committed another act of violence by dynamiting the Cortland building, but this would not have caused Rand to call TF "The Destroyer".

Rand let her heroes get away with a lot.

Suppose Lillian Rearden had felt entitled to 'retaliate the Roarkian way' against her husband (who too had 'breached a contract' by adultery), by e. g. destroying Dagny's apartment? How would Objectivists have judged her?

edit: Having read Stephen's post I have to say I like the distinction between "right" and "noble" soul and that Roark was actually of the former. I think that a noble soul is going to be a lot more social than the typical Randian hero might be.

The general problem with "morally right" is that different ideologies all claim 'rightness' for the moral values propagated by them.

Was Roark "right" in blowing up the building? Again, it is always 'right' by which created standard? Does breach of contract give peple the right to commit such acts? If yes, then Lillian would have had the same right, wouldn't she?

I think that a noble soul is going to be a lot more social than the typical Randian hero might be

The association I have with 'noble soul' goes in the same direction.

But what can make discussion in ethics problematic:

While 3 x 3 = 9 is the same in China as everywhere else, when you ask people what they think "a noble soul" is, you will get different answers from different individuals, often tinged by the culture they have absorbed.

Of the fiction I have read, certain characters stand out in my memory of which I would say they have "noble souls".

But imo Ayn Rand would have strongly disapproved of calling these persons noble at all since all three were socially oriented and often went out of their way to help others. Imo Rand would have despised them as so-called "altruists":

Dr. Rieux in Camus The Plague

Dorothea Brooke in G. Eliot's Middlemarch

Marija in L. Tolstoj's War and Peace.

Maybe also Alyosha in the F. Dostoyewski's The Broters Brothers Karamasov.

Isabel Archer in H. James's Portrait of a Lady is quite a noble soul too.

Compared to these, the Randian hero Roark comes across as having severe emotional deficits.

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

"The general problem with "morally right" is that different ideologies all claim 'rightness' for the moral values propagated by them."

What is your personal definitions of "morally right"? In other words, what is morally right to Ms. Xray?

"...'sanctioning of the victim'..." as you misstate the phrase is vastly different than what Ayn stated as the "sanction of the victim". You may correct or justify your misstatement now.

Adam

Unless you point out my alleged error first, I can't correct or justify.

So in what way did I misstate the phrase?

What is your personal definitions of "morally right"? In other words, what is morally right to Ms. Xray?

Your question alone stresses the subjectivity of moral values. ("morally right to (whom)...").

I wouldn't call them 'moral' values since morality referes to external influences e. g. as to what is arbitrarily labeled as 'moral' or 'immoral' behavior in a society.

All I could tell you is why I would do/not do this or that depending on my personal values.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

How did you arrive at, or come to know, or understand what your own "personal values" as stated in blue in your statement below were?

"All I could tell you is why I would do/not do this or that depending on my personal values."

Can you list them in order of the priority that you order them in?

Adam

thankful to get to the point

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

How did you arrive at, or come to know, or understand what your own "personal values" as stated in blue in your statement below were?

"All I could tell you is why I would do/not do this or that depending on my personal values."

Can you list them in order of the priority that you order them in?

Adam

thankful to get to the point

I have posted about my pivotal values several times, for example in response to Randall on the 'Rand's concept of a Hero' thread.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7703&st=40 (#56)

If you have questions or disagree with any points, just quote the what and why of alleged error and I will be happy to respond.

As for listing a whole catalog in order, please read my post # 177 on that very same 'Hero' thread, where I replied to that very same question of yours ("First, can you list your top ten values please?" (Selene):

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7703&st=160&p=81838entry81838

IIRC, you never answered my question if you keep such a list.

As to how people arrive at/come to know/understand what their subjective values are, does this question go in the direction of how a person develops personal values at all and is able to reflect about them?

Edited November 5, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

My question is as stated. How did you [a person] develop your personal values?

"I don't judge 'the character of men.' I evaluate the beliefs and actions of an individual to value, or disvalue in step with my personal preference."

In terms of the highlighted green part of the above statement, by what standards do you "evaluate"?

Additionally, how are you connecting "actions" and "to value"?

Adam

[Steve Gagne]

Xray --

I realize that what you have here was only a minor side point, not the main point you were trying to make, but it begs for a comment or two.

Suppose Lillian Rearden had felt entitled to 'retaliate the Roarkian way' against her husband (who too had 'breached a contract' by adultery), by e. g. destroying Dagny's apartment? How would Objectivists have judged her?

edit: Having read Stephen's post I have to say I like the distinction between "right" and "noble" soul and that Roark was actually of the former. I think that a noble soul is going to be a lot more social than the typical Randian hero might be.

The general problem with "morally right" is that different ideologies all claim 'rightness' for the moral values propagated by them.

Was Roark "right" in blowing up the building? Again, it is always 'right' by which created standard? Does breach of contract give peple the right to commit such acts? If yes, then Lillian would have had the same right, wouldn't she?

When Roark blew up the building, he was repossessing property (the design) that belonged to him and for which he had not been paid. He made sure he did it only after ensuring that noone would be physically harmed by his action. After he had taken his action, those who wished to purloin his property no longer had access to it.

On the other hand, if Lillian were to blow up Dagny's place, in which she had no property interest, it would not be a repossession but a malicious act of vandalism and/or reckless endangerment. She would not care who else she hurt in the process. Furthermore, it would not interfere in the least with anything Dagny and Hank chose to do that she regarded as being a "breach".

These are different in intent, different in the enactment, different in the result. I don't see how you can imply any kind of moral equivalence between these two.

steve

Edited November 6, 2009 by Steve Gagne

[tjohnson]

When Roark blew up the building, he was repossessing property (the design) that belonged to him and for which he had not been paid.

??? He blew up a building because he owned the design??

[Steve Gagne]

When Roark blew up the building, he was repossessing property (the design) that belonged to him and for which he had not been paid.

??? He blew up a building because he owned the design??

You haven't read the book, or barring that, at least seen the Gary Cooper movie?

[tjohnson]

You haven't read the book, or barring that, at least seen the Gary Cooper movie?

Nope. Your statement caught my attention because it sounded so illogical.

[Steve Gagne]

You haven't read the book, or barring that, at least seen the Gary Cooper movie?

Nope. Your statement caught my attention because it sounded so illogical.

Natural outcome of O-ist property theory. Also, it's now the basis for latest Berne Convention international agreements concerning intellectual property -- patents and copyrights.

[Reidy]

Eleanor Roosevelt was fond of a saying she said she'd learned as a girl: no one can make you feel bad without your consent. It's preposterous, but it bears at least a superficial similarity to Rand's idea.

[tjohnson]

Natural outcome of O-ist property theory. Also, it's now the basis for latest Berne Convention international agreements concerning intellectual property -- patents and copyrights.

Well if it's a natural outcome of O-ist theory that you can blow up buildings if you own the design then there is something wrong with O-ist theory. I don't need to know anything about O-ist theory (or watch the movie) to come to that conclusion.